Decision 1519H – Regents of the University of California (Los Alamos National Laboratory)
SF-CE-613-H
Decision Date: May 7, 2003
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Perc Vol: 27
Perc Index: 67
Decision Headnotes
200.01000 – In General
A charging party claiming supervisory status must provide specific facts establishing that status. Enter did not provide any evidence of her supervisory status. Since LANL disputed her claim of supervisory status, the Board agent analyzed her claims under HEERA as if Enter was a non-supervisory employee.
200.04000 – Supervisors
A charging party claiming supervisory status must provide specific facts establishing that status. Enter did not provide any evidence of her supervisory status. Since LANL disputed her claim of supervisory status, the Board agent analyzed her claims under HEERA as if Enter was a non-supervisory employee.
300.12000 – Insistence on Union Representation
Under the Weingarten standard, if the purpose of an employer-employee meeting is to present a final disciplinary memo and is not investigatory, the employee has no right to union representation at the meeting. However, LANL allowed Enter to have representation at the meeting, though not the representative of her choice. These facts do not allege a prima facie case of interference under HEERA.
408.01000 – In General
Under the Weingarten standard, if the purpose of an employer-employee meeting is to present a final disciplinary memo and is not investigatory, the employee has no right to union representation at the meeting. However, LANL allowed Enter to have representation at the meeting, though not the representative of her choice. These facts do not allege a prima facie case of interference under HEERA.
602.01000 – In General
Enter, as an individual employee, lacked standing to allege a unilateral change by the employer for denying her a choice of representative in a disciplinary hearing.
1100.03000 – Standing
Enter, as an individual employee, lacked standing to allege a unilateral change by the employer for denying her a choice of representative in a disciplinary hearing.
1100.12000 – Extensions of Time
Enter’s failure to respond to a Board agent’s inquiry whether she needed an extension of time to file an amended charge after the deadline was proper grounds for a dismissal of Enter’s charge by the Board agent.
1101.01000 – In General
A charging party must establish that the challenged conduct did not fall outside the six-month statute of limitations in order for the Board to proceed to evaluate the merits of the charge. Enter did not provide the date of the alleged tampering of the report or the date the report was issued; therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction to evaluate the merits of the charges.